Go Bernie!

[Skinypupy]

I do like Sanders, and I'm still partly considering voting for him in late April. I'm open to that because his message is important and because this is a good time to send it. I'm honestly undecided.

In my heart, though, I don't believe Sanders is presidential material. He seems too inexperienced despite his years, too prickly to make anything happen in a mixed Washington, and too narrowly focused to handle the whole work of the Executive. I'm very concerned about the hazy idealism he seems to substitute for plans and expertise, and I'm especially worried about his foreign policy weakness. There's too much wishful thinking about Sanders, both among his supporters and from the candidate himself. He's running a campaign that promises everything, which to me is far more dishonest than anything Clinton has been accused of doing. He mirrors Trump that way.

Most of all, presidents need not only popularity but willingness and skill at the give-and-take of politics, and Sanders shows none of that--In fact his popularity is based almost entirely on his rejection of it. Obama has been criticized for giving away a little too much, but we've won a lot with him since 2008. Sanders' whole approach seems to be that it's miracles or nothing, and that's how you get nothing.

Well put Holman, and pretty much sums up my thoughts on Sanders as well. There's lots about him that I support and can get behind, but there's just as much that sounds "pie in the sky" and entirely unrealistic.

I'm very much on the fence between Sanders and Clinton at this point, as I'm not a big fan of Hillary either (although I'd obviously vote for either before Trump or Cruz)

[Kraken]

Based on an interview that I saw, Bernie is a humanist. Gods are optional to humanists so IDK if Bernie would consider himself atheist or not but people who are unconcerned with fine distinctions will.

"Humanist" is a friendly rebranding of "Atheist." I have an excellent book about the foundation of Humanism that I'd love all my churchy friends to read.

Not exactly true since a humanist can be agnostic or atheist or even various shades of pagan, for that matter, as long as he doesn't embrace a "higher power." But few people make that distinction, so close enough. Sanders is clearly a humanist but I don't presume to guess his opinions about the supernatural.

[Carpet_pissr]

Sorry, my comment was more in reference to the article mentioning he is Jewish rather than his visit to the Vatican.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Defiant]

I'd say he's probably more culturally Jewish than religiously. Which is fine, although the only time he talked about it, it's only been in reference to the Holocaust. We've got more culture than that, like our food.

[Defiant]

Sanders was asked an anti-Semitic question:

“As you know,” opened the questioner, “the Zionist Jews–and I don’t mean to offend anybody–they run the Federal Reserve, they run Wall Street, they run every campaign.”

How Sanders responded:

“No, no, no, that’s not what you’re asking,” Sanders quickly replied, in a nod to the question’s underlying prejudice. “I am proud to be Jewish,” he declared, to cheers from the audience. But then Sanders did something odd. Rather than using the question as a teaching moment to address and rebuke its anti-Semitic underpinnings, Sanders instead immediately pivoted to his stump speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

How he should have responded:

What you just heard was outlandish and unacceptable, but I am glad that you did, because it gives me an opportunity to utterly repudiate it. The lie that a secret Jewish conspiracy controls this country or others has been used to justify the persecution and murder of Jewish people for centuries, including my own family in the Holocaust. It is an ancient anti-Semitic canard whose bigotry is not lessened by prefacing it with the word “Zionist.”

I completely reject that question and the prejudice behind it, just as I have stood on stages like this one and rejected the systemic racism in our society and the rising tide of Islamophobia in this election. There are those who traffic in hateful stereotypes and seek to pit us against each other–black and white, gay and straight, Jew and non-Jew–and I will always stand against them, and for all of us.

As a prominent Jewish man running for the highest office, he'll no doubt face more anti-Semitism from the fringes in the future. I hope he'll respond better in the future.

[Rip]

[Jeff V]

As a prominent Jewish man running for the highest office, he'll no doubt face more anti-Semitism from the fringes in the future. I hope he'll respond better in the future.

Maybe he knows something you just assume is heresay.

[hepcat]

Any time I see a "what he should have said" commentary that detailed, I wince. I find them to be rather ridiculous. He batted down the antisemitism in a succinct and decisive manner, but because he didn't then rail on about something that most decent human beings understand to be wrong, he's raked over the coals by this piece?

If he had, I'm sure there would have been a bunch of commentaries about how he's trying to capitalize on being Jewish. Sometimes you just can't win.

[Defiant]

Any time I see a "what he should have said" commentary that detailed, I wince. I find them to be rather ridiculous. He batted down the antisemitism in a succinct and decisive manner, but because he didn't then rail on about something that most decent human beings understand to be wrong, he's raked over the coals by this piece?

If he had, I'm sure there would have been a bunch of commentaries about how he's trying to capitalize on being Jewish. Sometimes you just can't win.

Nonsense He said he was proud to be Jewish, but then he pivoted away, without challenging any of the anti-Semitic claims the guy made. The way to respond to anti-Semitism is to stand up to it, tear down the claims and point out the harm and damage from them. That's true of other bigotry, be it sexism, racism or homosexuality.

And if he really "just can't win", then maybe he ought to do what's right, rather than be concerned about winning. But honestly, I can't see the downside to standing up to anti-Semitism. He'll lose the anti-Jewish vote?

[El Guapo]

Any time I see a "what he should have said" commentary that detailed, I wince. I find them to be rather ridiculous. He batted down the antisemitism in a succinct and decisive manner, but because he didn't then rail on about something that most decent human beings understand to be wrong, he's raked over the coals by this piece?

If he had, I'm sure there would have been a bunch of commentaries about how he's trying to capitalize on being Jewish. Sometimes you just can't win.

Nonsense He said he was proud to be Jewish, but then he pivoted away, without challenging any of the anti-Semitic claims the guy made. The way to respond to anti-Semitism is to stand up to it, tear down the claims and point out the harm and damage from them. That's true of other bigotry, be it sexism, racism or homosexuality.

And if he really "just can't win", then maybe he ought to do what's right, rather than be concerned about winning. But honestly, I can't see the downside to standing up to anti-Semitism. He'll lose the anti-Jewish vote?

FWIW he did do a little bit more:

As this unfolded, Sanders began wagging his finger in dissent, and interjected to deem “Zionist Jews” a “bad phrase.” His interlocutor, pressed to articulate a question, concluded by saying, “What is your affiliation to your Jewish community? That’s all I’m asking.”

I would've liked to have seen maybe another sentence or so denouncing the anti-Semitism, but mostly this doesn't seem like a big deal.

Also reminds me of the time last year when an NPR reporter asked a question premised on the false notion that Sanders has dual citizenship with Israel.

[Defiant]

FWIW he did do a little bit more:

As this unfolded, Sanders began wagging his finger in dissent, and interjected to deem “Zionist Jews” a “bad phrase.” His interlocutor, pressed to articulate a question, concluded by saying, “What is your affiliation to your Jewish community? That’s all I’m asking.”

Eh, a wagging finger isn't exactly much of a challenge.

Also reminds me of the time last year when an NPR reporter asked a question premised on the false notion that Sanders has dual citizenship with Israel.

This was a better response, categorically stating that the claim was false.

[hepcat]

As the Bard once wrote, much ado about nothing.

[El Guapo]

FWIW he did do a little bit more:

As this unfolded, Sanders began wagging his finger in dissent, and interjected to deem “Zionist Jews” a “bad phrase.” His interlocutor, pressed to articulate a question, concluded by saying, “What is your affiliation to your Jewish community? That’s all I’m asking.”

Eh, a wagging finger isn't exactly much of a challenge.

Also reminds me of the time last year when an NPR reporter asked a question premised on the false notion that Sanders has dual citizenship with Israel.

This was a better response, categorically stating that the claim was false.

I don't disagree, exactly, but as the article notes it was at the end of an hour-long event, and the answer wasn't bad, it just could have been significantly better.

I'm more bothered by Sanders saying that Israel killed "over 10,000 innocents" in Gaza, when that's over seven times higher than the figure that even Hamas uses, let alone that used by more objective sources.

[Defiant]

I'm more bothered by Sanders saying that Israel killed "over 10,000 innocents" in Gaza, when that's over seven times higher than the figure that even Hamas uses, let alone that used by more objective sources.

I'm less bothered by the quantitative mistake - I expect someone not to have a specific number or name off the top of their head and he backed away from it later - than that he called it indiscriminate and that a day or two later, in interviews, he still used an inflated number (2100) for the number of dead civilians. By that point, he really should have checked his figures.

[Defiant]

Verizon CEO rips Sanders' 'contemptible' views

Sanders has often taken on companies like Verizon during the course of the campaign, remarking in an interview with the New York Daily News editorial board earlier this month that corporations seeking to move out of the U.S. to make "even more money" are "destroying the moral fabric of this country."

McAdam, like Immelt, pushed back at Sanders' claim that Verizon does not pay its fair share of taxes, pointing to financial statements that show the company has paid $15.6 billion in the last two years alone, with a 35 percent rate in 2015. He also took issue with Sanders' assertion that Verizon has not invested enough in the U.S.

[GreenGoo]

I think in a showdown between a telecom company and the devil, it would be a tough decision which side to pick, so the Verizon dude can shove it. I don't even want to hear what he has to say on anything. Not even the weather.

[Defiant]

I don't like Verizon either, but attack them with facts, not false insinuations.

[gbasden]

Certainly given the number of companies doing shady things with offshoring funds and paying pittances in taxes it should be easy for him to come up with a valid example.

[Fitzy]

A US corporation actually paid 35%? That's kind of shocking if true.

[Zarathud]

Certainly given the number of companies doing shady things with offshoring funds and paying pittances in taxes it should be easy for him to come up with a valid example.

Bernie knows going after Apple will not be received well by his target demographic.

[ImLawBoy]

I think in a showdown between a telecom company and the devil, it would be a tough decision which side to pick, so the Verizon dude can shove it. I don't even want to hear what he has to say on anything. Not even the weather.

Love you too!

[GreenGoo]

I think in a showdown between a telecom company and the devil, it would be a tough decision which side to pick, so the Verizon dude can shove it. I don't even want to hear what he has to say on anything. Not even the weather.

Love you too!

We can still play video games together, just don't offer any opinions on telecom related subjects. I'll abstain too. We'll get along fine.

[El Guapo]

I think in a showdown between a telecom company and the devil, it would be a tough decision which side to pick, so the Verizon dude can shove it. I don't even want to hear what he has to say on anything. Not even the weather.

Love you too!

I'm just glad that attorneys are universally beloved and respected.

[Rip]

I'm more bothered by Sanders saying that Israel killed "over 10,000 innocents" in Gaza, when that's over seven times higher than the figure that even Hamas uses, let alone that used by more objective sources.

I'm less bothered by the quantitative mistake - I expect someone not to have a specific number or name off the top of their head and he backed away from it later - than that he called it indiscriminate and that a day or two later, in interviews, he still used an inflated number (2100) for the number of dead civilians. By that point, he really should have checked his figures.

Unless I misheard him at the debate it has now jumped to 15K.

smh

edit: Or maybe he said 1500 or so, I was only half listening and can't find a decent transcript. Just a lot of crappy blog highlighting.

[Max Peck]

Bernie Sanders didn't just come of age in the Sixties, he parked there.

[Defiant]

In case anyone's interested in reading Sanders remarks to the Vatican. I kinda half expected him to say that the Church should pay it's fair share of taxes. J/K Still doesn't make sense to me why he decided to take off a day or two to do this right before a large primary.

[em2nought]

Sanders remarks to the Vatican

Archie Bunker would definitely call that guy "Meathead".

[Kraken]

Still doesn't make sense to me why he decided to take off a day or two to do this right before a large primary.

An endorsement from God can't hurt. Even in NY.

[Defiant]

A miracle from God can't hurt. Even in NY.

Fixed that for you.

[Kraken]

That could work too.

[El Guapo]

I'm more bothered by Sanders saying that Israel killed "over 10,000 innocents" in Gaza, when that's over seven times higher than the figure that even Hamas uses, let alone that used by more objective sources.

I'm less bothered by the quantitative mistake - I expect someone not to have a specific number or name off the top of their head and he backed away from it later - than that he called it indiscriminate and that a day or two later, in interviews, he still used an inflated number (2100) for the number of dead civilians. By that point, he really should have checked his figures.

Unless I misheard him at the debate it has now jumped to 15K.

smh

edit: Or maybe he said 1500 or so, I was only half listening and can't find a decent transcript. Just a lot of crappy blog highlighting.

I think he said ~ 1,500 dead, plus 10k or 15k injured. Which I understand to be at least a plausible figure.

[em2nought]

At least in the Soviet Union it was the Socialist "Workers" Party. Here it's the Socialist Nonworkers Party.

[El Guapo]

At least in the Soviet Union it was the Socialist "Workers" Party. Here it's the Socialist Nonworkers Party.

Sick socialism burn, bro.

[Defiant]

While this article is a little premature, it is insightful and discusses some of the missteps of Sander's Revolution.

But on a more important level, Sanders has also failed to substantially change the Democratic Party at its core: its acceptance of big-dollar fundraising and incremental policy advancement. That was a tough task for Sanders, especially considering he had steered clear of the party for most of his political career until his presidential quest (prompting Hillary to remark at one point, “I’m not even sure he is a Democrat”). For all his success at the polls, Sanders’ ideologically pure campaign foundered on the predictable shoals of policy specifics and political feasibility, obstacles that a progressive populist movement will need to overcome to truly succeed.

And much of the populist pressure could still affect how a President Clinton would govern. The prospects of another multinational trade agreement have dimmed. JPMorgan Chase’s CEO Jamie Dimon believes that there won’t be “a banker serving in a major role in Washington in the next 10 years.” Sanders’ moral victories give reason to believe that all it takes is the will to campaign on big, bold ideas to expand the parameters of the politically possible.

Yet those parameters are bound to narrow again as Hillary takes the party back toward the center. Sanders didn’t help matters by coming up short time and again with genuine specifics on how he would change things. That was especially evident—and probably harmful to him in the New York voting on Tuesday—when Sanders gave thin and dismissive responses to the New York Daily News editorial board’s probing questions about which bureaucratic tools he’d use to achieve his goals, the economic consequences of his plans and the particulars of his foreign policy. In doing so, he validated the Clinton campaign critique that, in Bill Clinton’s words, he’s a “change-talker, not a change-maker.”

Another Sanders misstep was making his campaign look like a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party apparatus—a great strategy for winning left-leaning independents but not so much for the larger pool of registered Democrats.

Clooney’s artful statement highlights a crucial point: There is a huge amount of overlap between Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters. The divisions are mostly over the degree of ambition and choice of tactics, not general ideological direction. Attacking fellow Democrats as “corporate Democratic whores,” as one Sanders introductory speaker did, or creatures of the “establishment,” limits the ability of the Sanders campaign to win votes from rock-ribbed Democrats today and to build alliances within the party tomorrow.

Alliances were not Sanders’ strong suit in the campaign. Sanders’ friction with women’s rights groups and his difficulty navigating the politics of race betrayed the difficulty of building a diverse, electorally potent coalition around a rigid set of economic issues.

Then, after the convention, where do the Sandernistas go? No doubt time is on their side. The Washington Post’s James Downie, noting that much of the Democratic Party leadership is nearing retirement, says that to triumph, Sanders supporters need to be “running for office and joining party organizations.” Slate’s Jamelle Bouie similarly argues, “The people inspired by Sanders need to do more than beat the establishment; they need to become it.”

[NickAragua]

At least in the Soviet Union it was the Socialist "Workers" Party. Here it's the Socialist Nonworkers Party.

If you think those guys did any work, you are sadly mistaken.

[em2nought]

At least in the Soviet Union it was the Socialist "Workers" Party. Here it's the Socialist Nonworkers Party.

If you think those guys did any work, you are sadly mistaken.

Probably sat around all day talking politics instead of helping with the commune veggie harvest. Bernie's kinda people fo' sure http://www.dailywire.com/news/5120/sand ... nk-berrien hehe

[Blackhawk]

You're trying way too hard today.

[Rip]

You're trying way too hard today.

Its needed, I'm in a little of an energy lull.

Unlike the GOP party we work together for common goals.

[Holman]

OK, Sanders has pissed me off locally. This, to me, is a serious indication of his inability to get into the weeds and understand politics the way functional and effective Democrats must.

In Philadelphia we've been facing an education crisis for years. While we now have a new and admirable state governor, the Pennsylvania state legislature is still dominated by Tea-Party-inflected Republicans, and Harrisburg has been at war with Pennsylvania's two major cities for decades.

As a result, Philadelphia's options for educational funding are extremely limited. Progressives here have been forced to be as creative as possible in producing solutions, and very recently we've been on the cusp of a breakthrough in the form of a sugary soda tax that would fund nearly universal pre-K education. This is hugely important, and it has come about as the result of literally years of negotiation and the exhaustion of all other options. It's not an ideal funding solution, but the benefits are huge, and they're worth the compromise. City council was just now on the verge of approving this plan.

Suddenly, however, it's the 2016 race and Pennsylvania's primary actually matters. In just the past few days, Bernie Sanders has parachuted in and, adopting the rote stance that -all- sales taxes are regressive, has come out strongly against it. (Incidentally, this plan stipulates that the benefits flow first to the poorest, but that doesn't seem to matter.) It also seems likely that Sanders' opposition is intended to slam Philadelphia's new mayor, who supports the plan and is a Clinton ally.

Sanders is urging his followers to push for rejection, and city council is feeling the pressure. Clinton, meanwhile, has had her people research and understand the issue, and she has endorsed it as literally the only way we're going to get this kind of support for pre-K for at least a decade, or basically a generation of kids.

In other words, Sanders (who clearly knows nothing of our local situation and years of effort by our most progressive citizens to craft solutions) has stepped in to torpedo a pragmatic, achievable, and immensely beneficial compromise because it doesn't fit his big-picture playbook. In effect, the socialist has thrown his support behind the soda distributors fighting tooth and nail to keep this from going forward. And Sanders' position isn't merely theoretical: city council is divided, and pressure at this level can have an effect. Bernie is trying to derail universal pre-K in Philadelphia just when we were about to achieve it, presumably because it isn't pure enough for his revolution.

[Rip]

What most concerns me about this [immigration] legislation are the provisions that would bring low-wage workers into this country in order to depress the wages of American workers, which are already in decline. With poverty increasing and the middle-class shrinking, we must not force American workers into even more economic distress. The CEOs who want this bill aren’t even embarrassed by their hypocrisy. One day they shut down plants with high-skilled, well-paid American workers, and move to China where they pay desperate people 50 cents an hour. The next day, they have the nerve to come before the U.S Congress and tell us that they can’t find skilled workers to do the jobs that they need. Give me a break.